You'd have to take everyone's child away at birth and raise them in a commune, where the opportunities are all equal. All new babies would need to be anonymized to prevent rich people from finding out who their children are.
Just take a page out of Looking Backwards, have guaranteed employment with everyone being paid the same salary. Bam, instant equality of opportunity through equality of results.Followed by a collapse of the economy due to a gerenal loss of work ethic.
Haha, it's not the loss of work ethic. Far from it. The problem will come from those complaining they "deserve more."
There is no equal work for equal pay, since no one will agree on what's "equal work."
Never state ideas like this in public, or else the majority of the USA will declare you a RED COMMIE BASTARD!
Hitler ate sugar. Therefore, sugar = evil. QED :PNever state ideas like this in public, or else the majority of the USA will declare you a RED COMMIE BASTARD!
And the idea of equality is a communist axis. Because an 'evil' supports something does not mean it is without merit.
Clearly we cannot steal childrens and start a goblin fortress.-"Legally."
Hitler ate sugar. Therefore, sugar = evil. QED :PNever state ideas like this in public, or else the majority of the USA will declare you a RED COMMIE BASTARD!
And the idea of equality is a communist axis. Because an 'evil' supports something does not mean it is without merit.
Anyway, the way I'd do it is pretty much destroying the concept of inheritance. Parents could spend their paychecks on luxuries and whatnot for their kids, but as far as education/etc goes, they get the same as everyone else regardless of how much money they have. Plus, hefty death taxes.
That way no one gets privileged enough to read or do math and we're all on the same playing field.
??? is that satire?I'm assuming typo, but I suppose he could be strawmanning me.QuoteThat way no one gets privileged enough to read or do math and we're all on the same playing field.
Interesting (and relevant) links my wife just sent me:
...
??? is that satire?I'm assuming typo, but I suppose he could be strawmanning me.QuoteThat way no one gets privileged enough to read or do math and we're all on the same playing field.
TBH, inequality could be down to our genes. someone gets down's syndrome, and they are on a less equal footing than someone who is a natural genius.
A much more interesting and relevant question is, to what degree is reducing inequality a good thing?
So you are strawmanning me, then.??? is that satire?I'm assuming typo, but I suppose he could be strawmanning me.QuoteThat way no one gets privileged enough to read or do math and we're all on the same playing field.
No, no, I sincerely support the idea of sending all children to the same standard of school. It's the perfect solution - if no one can get ahead, no one will ever be behind. Since you mentioned education/etc obviously this could be applied to after school activities or anything else that might give someone an unfair advantage.
So you are strawmanning me, then.??? is that satire?I'm assuming typo, but I suppose he could be strawmanning me.QuoteThat way no one gets privileged enough to read or do math and we're all on the same playing field.
No, no, I sincerely support the idea of sending all children to the same standard of school. It's the perfect solution - if no one can get ahead, no one will ever be behind. Since you mentioned education/etc obviously this could be applied to after school activities or anything else that might give someone an unfair advantage.
I'm not advocating forcing square pegs into circular holes. I'm advocating removing the parent's wealth from the equation, nothing else.
You wanna talk about the failures of public schools in encouraging kids? Fine. It'd make a fine topic. But it's not this topic.
Parents shouldn't be able to send their child to a better school just because they can afford it, because this is inequality.Hooray for satirical positions actually making sense.
Is it really fair that some children do piano study? I don't think so.Man I really didn't like piano lessons :P
If you illegalized private schools than homeschooling would rise significantly. And private schools include most noteable universities.
The educational system needs reworking to be sure, but "no child left behind" and rising society to the greatest common demoninator (i.e. the weakest) isn't going to fix a thing.This is a fair concern, but completely irrelevant to the concept of removing parent's wealth out of education.
Schools. Get rid of the private ones, or at least make it so they have to operate to the same budget per child as the surrounding area (this way it's actual competition rather than just "An alternative for rich people", and a school wishing to increase its budget per child would have to help out the surrounding area).THIS. Put schools on equal footing. Make sure all the schools get allocated the same out ammount of resources and quality teachers.
You DONT take away money from people because "they have to much", you gauge how much they have and tax them in relation with the rest of the populace. Letting the goverment do crazy shit like take away hard-earned fortunes from families so Richy-McRicherson can be on the same level as UristMccMigrant.This is pretty bizarre and strawmanny. Society could be a hell of a lot more equal than it is now (see: 1%) without it being anywhere near the ridiculous scenario you're describing.
You really can't do anything not 1984isn past that, People are going to be lazy no matter what.
Even if you unjustly pillaged fortunes for the sake of stamping out that darn "privilege" or whateverthefuck tumblr crusaders are calling it. There's nothing stopping RichyMcRicherson or UristMcMigrant from hoping online and learning by themselves to get ahead. The government would need to make sure no-one has access to information unless its spoonfed to them, and no deviations of said ideas were allowed to exist. It would be a fucking nightmare.
Even in that distopian scenario, social stratification would occur. Some people will just be better off/have an easier time than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck)
Private schools certainly do get in the way of that and I'm not sure how to fix that, short of pumping tons of money into public schools so they compete.How about lowering the max amount they can charge for school fees? >_>
For that to be effective, the "max amount" would have to be 0, so that those in poverty can go as well. As after all, they're the ones that need it most.Private schools certainly do get in the way of that and I'm not sure how to fix that, short of pumping tons of money into public schools so they compete.How about lowering the max amount they can charge for school fees? >_>
You don't think that, say, the top 1% could stand to lose a relatively small fraction of their wealth in order to massively improve conditions for those currently below the poverty line?That's just stating the obvious though.
Theology professors and the like would be limited to private schools though, unless you really want government funding to go toward stuff like that. And since I doubt outlawing religious classes would be a good idea either, we're kinda stuck.I didn't suggest outlawing either of those things. If a private school can fund those things within its budget that's no problem at all.
That's just stating the obvious though.Yeah.
Parents shouldn't be able to send their child to a better school just because they can afford it, because this is inequality.Hooray for satirical positions actually making sense.
Yes, they shouldn't be able to send their kid elsewhere JUST because they can afford it. Otherwise, those who couldn't afford it would be stuck in the "bad" school. Instead, we should give parents lots of options, make sure there are no "bad" schools in the first place, or both.QuoteIs it really fair that some children do piano study? I don't think so.Man I really didn't like piano lessons :P
I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though. Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally
You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).
I know for a fact that it was doable for very low class families to, with effort, send their children to the hated private school.Why are the lower classes required to put in more effort? What can we do to make it the same, without putting arbitrary ceilings on things?
GUYS! I thought up of another way to make everyone equal!
kill everyone by the same means! then there is no inequality!
Destroy the social order. That's your only option if you feel like removing inequality.Sounds good to me. Current social order sucks.
As a side note, the "American Dream" is bupkis. A nice lie told to working class heroes.
As a side note, the "American Dream" is bupkis. A nice lie told to working class heroes.
As a side note, '"the American Dream' is bupkis," is bullshit, a nice lie told to people who can't be happy with life and blame society instead of themselves.
Life sucks, but until you're not breathing any more, you've always got the ability to fight your way to another chance at improving your lot in life and to leave a better life to your loved ones.
Life sucks, but until you're not breathing any more, you've always got the ability to fight your way to another chance at improving your lot in life and to leave a better life to your loved ones.If that's your definition, then great. I'll agree that such a thing exists and can be admirable.
That's my definition of the American Dream, and it's no lie while there's one cat practicing it.
People would bring up such an argument to show that "life isn't fair" is a problem that can be rectified, at least to the best of our ability. Life isn't fair because people purposefully make it that way (in addition to environmental influences and whatnot, but still).Life sucks, but until you're not breathing any more, you've always got the ability to fight your way to another chance at improving your lot in life and to leave a better life to your loved ones.
In b4 strawmanesque argument about those that can't.
Well then its still kinda true that 'anyone can make it', but not 'everyone can make it'.Tell that to a Hispanic fellow. Or a woman (glass ceilings, woo!).
getting rid of private property, or at least imposing a limit on how much you can hoard. you can still benefit people based on merit, but take away their power to exploit other people's merit
Go for the inheritance tax. I'd like to see it. It'll work for a while, until money influence undoes it again. I won't complain about measures that relieve the symptoms, but I'll still point out that the disease isn't cured.
And what's the problem anyway? People always recoil... but the concept of property doesn't benefit anyone, even those who manage to hoard the most of it. All it does is allow a small group of people to control everyone else's access to resources, and that small group experiences no benefit at all for being in such a position beyond the egotistical satisfaction of having that kind of power.
Trying to kill of private education seems kinda silly to me. What is our hypothetical parent still allowed to do? Can they hire a private tutor to teach their children off of school hours? Can they send them to low level college classes outside of school? Take a week off of work to teach their children themselves?They can do all those things, that's why I'm suggesting that being rich already gives your children enough of an advantage in life without slapping on a ridiculously expensive school. And at least those other measures aren't actively damaging to surrounding schools.
I mean, last time I checked, parents kinda should have a right to, you know, parent?
That's a bit of a wonky problem to solve, though. I mean, government monopoly on the labor market for teachers? If we're looking at the high-speed, super-motivated individual who is considering being an educator, and who could make it as a highly-paid, highly effective private teacher, how much of a detriment is this going to have on them going into teaching in the first place?Reread my proposal. You are not responding to it since I did not advocate a government monopoly - merely that private institutions would have to offer better efficiency rather than just more cash.
I'd exactly agree with that. Education's paid out of whatever tax it's normally paid out of (your jurisdiction determinate, I'm pretty sure it's property based in Fargo, at least), then let the parent do whatever the bloody hell they want with educating their kids. Killing upper class education isn't going to improve the lower class ones, it'll just make parents seek other ways for their children to get ahead (and, to be honest, I don't see why this is always a bedeviled human habit).I explained how allowing the children of rich people to have ridiculously expensive education directly harms others - it sucks the teaching talent out of the state sector and means that poor kids are at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to getting university places. It is absolute poison to social mobility and equality.
I dunno, it may be because I'm from Fargo, North Dakota, the nicest city in the world. But, I know for a fact that it was doable for very low class families to, with effort, send their children to the hated private school. Also, I can say from my own family's straight middle class experience, one can send someone to world-class primary education (namely my little sister, I'm publicly edumacated through and through)Please qualify "with effort". In particular explain how someone earning £18,500 a year (the average income) might be expected to send their kids to a £33,000 a year institution (an institution renowned for blasting its students into the top universities at the expense of children from state schools).
I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though. Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally and b) a student who is getting £33,000 a year spent on their education (not to mention the extra support they'll receive from having a richer family in the first place) is inevitably going to have a large advantage over a student who had a £4000 a year education when it comes to getting into a top university. And thus the children of rich people will go on to become tomorrow's rich people in the majority of cases, at the expense of those in lower income families.
You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).
I feel like private schools being so heavily funded is in fact directly damaging to neighboring schools and the students in those schools, though. Since a) it means they can horde all the best teaching talent that might otherwise have been spread around more equally and b) a student who is getting £33,000 a year spent on their education (not to mention the extra support they'll receive from having a richer family in the first place) is inevitably going to have a large advantage over a student who had a £4000 a year education when it comes to getting into a top university. And thus the children of rich people will go on to become tomorrow's rich people in the majority of cases, at the expense of those in lower income families.
You can say the solution is to raise the standard of education, and I kindof agree but... we can't afford to spend £33,000 per student per year (I presume there are schools in America which charge similar fees).
At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.
At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.Great! Those schools wouldn't be affected by the law I'm suggesting at all (well, their students might benefit from not having to compete with other students with incredibly expensive educations), including the three or four that target poor people. If they can genuinely be more efficient with the same funding than state schools then that works fine - genuine competition.
This is a good point - parents who send their kids to private schools are still paying for public school, even though they can't use any of the facilities or take classes there.Outrage as essential public services are paid for by the public
At least in America, the average cost of private schools is actually generally less than the average cost of public school. It only is "expensive" because you're paying for education twice: first for public school education, and then for private school education. Inversely, some private schools are actually targeted at the extremely poor (esp. in places like Chicago), and yet provide a fairly good education. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work.Great! Those schools wouldn't be affected by the law I'm suggesting at all (well, their students might benefit from not having to compete with other students with incredibly expensive educations), including the three or four that target poor people. If they can genuinely be more efficient with the same funding than state schools then that works fine - genuine competition.This is a good point - parents who send their kids to private schools are still paying for public school, even though they can't use any of the facilities or take classes there.Outrage as essential public services are paid for by the public
If people paying for private schools are also still paying for public school, how is the existence of the private schools damaging to the public schools?I think I've answered this question at least 3 times and I'm not answering it again.
I agree that private schools shouldn't really be allowed. They're something where capitalism has no place.
I think I've answered this question at least 3 times and I'm not answering it again.
First of all, although Finland can show the United States what equal opportunity looks like, Americans cannot achieve equity without first implementing fundamental changes in their school system. The following three issues require particular attention.This is pretty similar to what I'm advocating (although the Finnish system goes a step further and eliminates fee paying schools entirely). He has a lot of other neat suggestions, but note that he's effectively saying they're all meaningless unless the three major points at the start (one of which is related to equity) are dealt with.
Funding of schools: Finnish schools are funded based on a formula guaranteeing equal allocation of resources to each school regardless of location or wealth of its community.
What if we reduced the minimum age for schooling to say 3 or 4 and ended it earlier while encouraging technical schools for the majority of population? The higher scorers should be encouraged to take traditionally challenging paths... and demand would help dictate who goes where to educate for high school and up.
(since we are off topic somewhat)
You'd have to take everyone's child away at birth and raise them ia commune, where the opportunities are all equal. All new babies would need to be anonymized to prevent rich people from finding out who their children are.
You're missing the point. When people say equal, they don't mean clones, and they don't mean perfectly equal. That's impossible and everyone knows it. Some people get struck by lightning, some people win the lottery. Stuff happens.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think you're confusing equality with randomness.Dammit, I need to learn to be concise in forum posts. Also, ninja, but I wrote this up so I'm posting it anyway.
Not to mention have me failing remedial classes, and then shoot up to the highest courses when I was allowed to type or dictate my work.
I think you're confusing equality with randomness.
While not trying to be too specific and limit things, how would we *clears throat* "...assure both the children of top earners and bottom dwellers alike start on the same relative line..."? How could we create a meritocracy and what would the challenges be?
That doesn't change that your influence removal efforts are still unequal,, just randomly unequal.Could you elaborate, please?
You would succeed in achieving only frustration and chaos among the children as you remove everything they could possibly latch onto week after week, leaving them adrift and desperate. They'd probably start trying to kill each other once the effective social isolation went on for long enough, or something else equally undesirable.I've no doubt that of we were to insert our current kids into such a situation it would be bad for them, but for people born and raised in the system, I imagine they would cope a lot better (but I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't be certain).
I dunno, he might be onto something. Take a page from Brave New World. The easiest way to make everyone equal isn't to bring everyone up to the level of the highest member, it's to cut everyone down to the level of the lowest.Just saw this, this is not what Brave New World was saying. The World State is anything but an equal society. In fact, the inherent inequalities of the castes enforced through stunting them as fetuses is about as unequal as you can get. The World State's thing was happiness. Anything they could do to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure, they did. They even mentioned how they once reduced the working day to make people more "happy" but then changed it back because they were bored instead of happy to be working less, and boredom is unacceptable to the World State.
Hey SalmonGod, I dunno if you are still reading this, but I sorta got a question/comment on your proposal. Other then the part you touched upon with it currently being impossible to even think about doing.
In your world you got going. Why would anyone make anything? You gave examples of things like farmers would own the farms they use, and factory workers will own the factories. But. And you even seemed to have a fairly unreasonable expectation that people would just make factories and farms and stuff. But even if that all worked out. Why would they make things? When I really think about it, it makes no sense. If you only own what you can use, why would you make any more then you could personally use? Why would anyone make excess and specialize, which is pretty much the foundation of civilization.
I can't understand why people wouldn't do those things. I don't understand why removing the abstract imaginary number game from society is supposed to be so demotivating compared to working more directly for things that are beneficial to yourself and your community. Do you really think most people would be happy merely subsisting? We naturally seek ways to improve our quality of life all the time. If people were as unmotivated as it seems like you're asserting they are (which is a really common response), then people wouldn't immerse themselves in student loan debt to get through college while working two jobs, and then bust their asses trying to establish a career for the hope that they might get to be comfortable the last 10 years of their life. Everyone would drop out of high school as soon as they could and work at McDonald's forever.I can understand why I would work to improve my own situation, but not to improve other people's. If someone gave me the choice between working all day so someone else (who I don't know) can benefit, or sitting at home and masturbating* all day, I'm going to masturbate.
In a social libertarian system, personal gain and community gain are one and the same. If you want something which your community lacks, then you find a way to create it. To go beyond mere subsistence, people will specialize and cooperate.This is something I don't believe is possible to achieve. There are certain limitations that can't be avoided through social reconstruction. There are physical and mathematical limitations on certain desireable elements that are smaller than community sizes.
That doesn't change that your influence removal efforts are still unequal,, just randomly unequal.Could you elaborate, please?
Edit: Sorry if this came off a little ranty and I missed the point of your question. I rattled it off very quickly on the last few minutes of my lunch break.
I'm still waiting for a response to this:Your system wouldn't achieve equality because while you have removed many influences you have inflated one: random chance. The children that prosper and the children that don't won't have started on a level playing field due to you constantly switching everything around. You have only focused upon the elimination of societal inequality, while the circumstantial inequalities remain uncompensated for.That doesn't change that your influence removal efforts are still unequal,, just randomly unequal.Could you elaborate, please?
I'm still waiting for a response to this:Your system wouldn't achieve equality because while you have removed many influences you have inflated one: random chance. The children that prosper and the children that don't won't have started on a level playing field due to you constantly switching everything around. You have only focused upon the elimination of societal inequality, while the circumstantial inequalities remain uncompensated for.That doesn't change that your influence removal efforts are still unequal,, just randomly unequal.Could you elaborate, please?
No the problem isn't even that "Poor kids exit school with less education" either.The point I would make about poor families in the school system, isn't that the schools are particularly biased against them, but that ability to choose schools requires some combination of money or luck, often large amounts of those things.
It would matter if the reason this happened is one that was "Unfair" so to speak. For example if they simply do not have the time or money to study or go to higher education.
Edit: Sorry if this came off a little ranty and I missed the point of your question. I rattled it off very quickly on the last few minutes of my lunch break.
No, that's fine. And you sorta touched on what I was getting at a bit. My thought here was, if you can only own what you yourself use. Why would you make more then you could personally use? In a factory, why make more (for instance) cars then the number of people working in the factory. Why grow more food on a farm then the amount eaten by the people working the farm. If you can't own it, it won't benefit you. And if you can own it, you just opened the gate to things that create wealth and not utility for you count as something you can use, which is exactly the thing you have been trying to get rid of.
I can understand why I would work to improve my own situation, but not to improve other people's. If someone gave me the choice between working all day so someone else (who I don't know) can benefit, or sitting at home and masturbating* all day, I'm going to masturbate.
Edit: Sorry if this came off a little ranty and I missed the point of your question. I rattled it off very quickly on the last few minutes of my lunch break.
No, that's fine. And you sorta touched on what I was getting at a bit. My thought here was, if you can only own what you yourself use. Why would you make more then you could personally use? In a factory, why make more (for instance) cars then the number of people working in the factory. Why grow more food on a farm then the amount eaten by the people working the farm. If you can't own it, it won't benefit you. And if you can own it, you just opened the gate to things that create wealth and not utility for you count as something you can use, which is exactly the thing you have been trying to get rid of.I can understand why I would work to improve my own situation, but not to improve other people's. If someone gave me the choice between working all day so someone else (who I don't know) can benefit, or sitting at home and masturbating* all day, I'm going to masturbate.
It's simple mutualism. You produce more than you need for yourself, because you rely on other people to do the same. If you work at a factory making cars, you'll want to make enough cars for the community, not just yourself. Access to cars increases the productivity of your community. The prosperity of your community increases, and you get to share in that prosperity.
Your system wouldn't achieve equality because while you have removed many influences you have inflated one: random chance. The children that prosper and the children that don't won't have started on a level playing field due to you constantly switching everything around. You have only focused upon the elimination of societal inequality, while the circumstantial inequalities remain uncompensated for.But the switching around means that if there is an influence somewhere that benefits some children more than others, then any given child will have their exposure to it limited. The more you spread out their developments over different sites, the less variation from the norm in total development you'll see. The development variance is approximately inversely proportional to the number of sites switched between.
What practical reason do you have to not be an asshole to everyone you know? It's because such behavior would make you ineligible for many social benefits, and encourage others to be an asshole towards you in return. It's the same concept. You specialize and produce goods for others to use, so that they will do the same. This is exactly the same as our system works now. The only difference is the way motivations and benefits are structured. It's more straightforward. You don't work mainly for the benefit of some upper class that doesn't care about you, just for permission to survive. You work when you believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed, such as a lack of cars.I certainly agree that such a system would work in a small community, but not in any large ones. I live in a city of over eight million people. I'm never going to even meet one per cent of them, and the population that I'll know and care about will be a lot smaller.
What practical reason do you have to not be an asshole to everyone you know? It's because such behavior would make you ineligible for many social benefits, and encourage others to be an asshole towards you in return. It's the same concept. You specialize and produce goods for others to use, so that they will do the same. This is exactly the same as our system works now. The only difference is the way motivations and benefits are structured. It's more straightforward. You don't work mainly for the benefit of some upper class that doesn't care about you, just for permission to survive. You work when you believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed, such as a lack of cars.I certainly agree that such a system would work in a small community, but not in any large ones. I live in a city of over eight million people. I'm never going to even meet one per cent of them, and the population that I'll know and care about will be a lot smaller.
And this is what I've heard from people my whole life, but I never understood what they were getting at. What is it about a larger community that makes it impossible to organize in an egalitarian fashion? What is the common feature of large scale societies that allows them to organize?It's one thing to be able to communicate with people, it's another to be able to care about them. It's quite easy to logically arrive at the conclusion that all people should be treated equally and you should look out for the interests of all people equally, but to actually do so is quite hard. There's a leading theory in anthrpology of Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number), which is that it is impossible to properly care about more people than a certain number (usually given as being around 150).
Eventually I figured out that the common feature is centralization, and the obstacle that centralization overcomes is limitations in communication. Now those limitations are gone, and the need for centralization with it.
It's one thing to be able to communicate with people, it's another to be able to care about them. It's quite easy to logically arrive at the conclusion that all people should be treated equally and you should look out for the interests of all people equally, but to actually do so is quite hard. There's a leading theory in anthrpology of Dunbar's number, which is that it is impossible to properly care about more people than a certain number (usually given as being around 150).
Iron womb, baby. Give it a few more decades, maybe a century or so (if that), and we'll be able to toss that bit out the window as the annoyance it is.You would try to kill the family structure and effectively sterilize humans?
And now you have the age old problem of who controls the controllers. Who will remove childrens from policeman mothers? Friends are going to help friends, and suddenly corruption is introduced in the system, as if one helps another, a honor debt bond is made (like mafia)
I always loved this argument, how workers of a factory will inevitably slack off and do not invest in it, because they are stupid and don't really care. Only a capitalist übermensch will make rational decisions because for some reason he likes taking risks. And everyone supposedly works harder when there is a guy at the top who does nothing and takes most of the money.
It isn't that the workers are stupid and don't care, it's that each worker is now taking the risk that the capitalist had alongside the wages that they had earlier. Risks, therefore, become a far greater danger to the worker-owners because if they pan out they only benefit if they work there for a very long time, whereas if they don't they are screwed over almost immediately.
Also, the "guy at the top who does nothing" generally provides the means of production, which he in turn either created or gained by exchanging things of equivalent value. The workers wouldn't get very far if they had to build cars without the necessary machinery provided by the capitalist, and then on top of that had no steady source of income whatsoever (if people don't like the car and don't buy it the worker actually loses money).
Not to mention the lack of administrative/high level experience many of these workers would face.
What risks could a company possibly face that would dissuade its owner from investing in it? I was under impression that's rather not investing in it and letting it stagnate is more risky.
He provides the means of production because he is the one who owns them, that's why he is called a capitalist. They are, in turn, created from... means of production, held by the capitalist. If someone owns all of them, it's only logical that he is the one who can provide them, but I don't see how this is a benefit for anyone else than him.
And this is what I've heard from people my whole life, but I never understood what they were getting at. What is it about a larger community that makes it impossible to organize in an egalitarian fashion? What is the common feature of large scale societies that allows them to organize?It's one thing to be able to communicate with people, it's another to be able to care about them. It's quite easy to logically arrive at the conclusion that all people should be treated equally and you should look out for the interests of all people equally, but to actually do so is quite hard. There's a leading theory in anthrpology of Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number), which is that it is impossible to properly care about more people than a certain number (usually given as being around 150).
Eventually I figured out that the common feature is centralization, and the obstacle that centralization overcomes is limitations in communication. Now those limitations are gone, and the need for centralization with it.
Extreme cost versus unknown chance of productivity increase.
Furthermore, again, if the workers own the company, then investing actually decreases their wages (since the money spent on capital goes towards wages otherwise).
He had to have worked to have made them in the first place, though. They didn't simply appear in his possession.
in this case you would just replace the shareholders with the workers
why do we assume inexperienced workers would manage business\factories\whatever themselves? why wouldn't they instead rely on the judgement of a competent administrator they themselves elected? that's the way businesses work in capitalist systems, shareholders usually have someone managing the business for the shareholders benefit, in this case you would just replace the shareholders with the workersIf you make it "workers and customers" then that is exactly what a co-operative is.
I don't really understand the significance of Dunbar's Number. I've been aware of it even before that Cracked article where it was termed The Monkeysphere, which is how most people seem to know about it. It's an interesting concept.I agree completely. I'm fully aware that there is nothing that makes the wants and desires of my neighbour worth more than those of someone on the other side of the world. Objectively, they are just as important. I know this completely, and fully logically and and rationally accept and live by this. However, making myself feel this way is not as simple. I can (and do) fully decide that I shall give someone I don't know the same respect and consideration as someone I do, but believing it subconciously is not something that is subject to rational decision.
But it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to objectively appreciate the notion that the people outside of your monkeysphere are just the same as the people inside of it. Society is a massive web of billions of overlapping monkeyspheres, and while yours may feel more important than others, that doesn't mean it objectively is.
The capitalist faces the same problem. When he is investing, he needs to sacrifice a significant part of his profits, having no way to be sure it will increase productivity.
No, he didn't. Inheritance and the positive feedback involving generation of capital means you don't have to lift a finger through your entire life, and still be able to live an opulent life. Hell, even the starting capital can be obtained in many ways, including crime, marriage, luck or other factors which don't involve merit in any way. Some of the successful European capitalists in XIX century, for example, were nobles - who were able to buy factories because they owned land, which could have been granted to their distant ancestor by a king several hundred years ago.
As for capitalist owners being necessary in order to take "risks" and for establishing means of production in the first place... that depends on how late into the capitalist game you are. At our late stage, most of this is achieved through inheritance, and capitalist owners are so powerful that they can rig the game to benefit them even when their investments fail. If you don't see this happening right now, you're delusional. In early stages, inequality is negligible enough that you can't really argue that inequality played a significant part in that establishment.
Plus, you keep talking about wages. Any system involving wages in any form comparable to what we know today would not be social libertarian. Your wage is a roughly equal access to the total wealth of your whole community, not just in the single operation that you participate in. Hoarding of goods beyond what could be called your personal possession is also literally impossible, as such ownership is seen as fundamentally illegitimate.
The idea that people need to personally know someone to care what happens to them is BS. Look at the difference between attitudes towards humans and animals. Where I live, people will be disgusted at the idea that somewhere in the world, a relatively small amount people are committing honor killings in on their family members.* But these same people consider it totally normal that anyone is allowed to go kill, say, a deer, purely for fun. Or that large amounts of livestock are raised so packed together that they can't move for most of their lives.And this is what I've heard from people my whole life, but I never understood what they were getting at. What is it about a larger community that makes it impossible to organize in an egalitarian fashion? What is the common feature of large scale societies that allows them to organize?It's one thing to be able to communicate with people, it's another to be able to care about them. It's quite easy to logically arrive at the conclusion that all people should be treated equally and you should look out for the interests of all people equally, but to actually do so is quite hard. There's a leading theory in anthrpology of Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number), which is that it is impossible to properly care about more people than a certain number (usually given as being around 150).
Eventually I figured out that the common feature is centralization, and the obstacle that centralization overcomes is limitations in communication. Now those limitations are gone, and the need for centralization with it.
Yet the capitalist has to compete with other capitalists to continue to even make profits, and these profits are his only source of income. Worker-owners would be making money through a mixture of profits and wages, and thus would have far less incentive to bother innovating.And where would be worker-owner money come from? That's right, from the company profit. Without profit, they would have to pocket company assets to fund their needs, which is a certain way to get their workplace bankrupt. Again, there is no difference between the situation of a worker-owner where you claim it is and I'm starting to wonder if you really see any significant distinction, or is it just a way to drag the discussion until I get exhausted.
Inheritance requires that someone actually created the wealth to pass on in the first place, though. It's not like the person wished it into being.You are ignoring what I stated before - that this system doesn't involve merit in any way. Someone created a small amount of means of production which in turn created more and more without needing their owner to even do anything. Even assuming an ideal case where the original owner of the capital honestly earns it, the reward given to each person in the inheritance chain is disproportionately high.
Certainly, some capitalists gained their capital through unscrupulous means. Some workers are rapists. It's rather irrelevant unless most capitalists did, which is not the case.
That only makes my point stronger. Again, if the community as a whole shares the resources, then each individual stands to benefit most by being as lazy a bum as he can be without being caught and punished. After all, if he works any harder, he benefits not at all. In fact, if he works harder, he benefits the lazy bums the most by disguising their reduced output!And how does it work out in a standard workplace, where the capitalist owns everything and all the profits from increased productivity go directly to him? Are they not inclined to be lazy, or his job-creator superhuman powers allow him to identify and expel slackers better than the people who work with him and are directly affected by his negligence?
The middle class does all the work, and the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up to those jobs.
And where would be worker-owner money come from? That's right, from the company profit. Without profit, they would have to pocket company assets to fund their needs, which is a certain way to get their workplace bankrupt. Again, there is no difference between the situation of a worker-owner where you claim it is and I'm starting to wonder if you really see any significant distinction, or is it just a way to drag the discussion until I get exhausted.Because in the worker-owned factory, there is no single person with expertise in capital investment, etc. It comes down to a vote, and the "voters" will change from time to time depending on who retires and who joins the company, so whether they make a good decision on Day 1 is largely irrelevant to whether they make a good decision on Day 250, whereas an entrepreneur who has been doing well on Day 1 will probably continue to do well up to Day 250 (though his methods may become outdated, etc in which case his company's assets will eventually be bought out by someone else to try again). They could vote to "hire" someone for these purposes, but then it just gets more complicated. Does he get an equal share in the factory too now that's managing things and controlling the assets of the factory? What if he wants a bigger share because his decisions have increased success at the factory far more than any other individual? What about R&D, which may vastly increase the factory's profitability but may also create nothing? Can a worker decide that he doesn't want the risk of actually losing money from the factory, and "sell" his ownership in exchange for a set amount of money from another worker? By the end of it all, you've more likely than not recreated a system extremely close to the original capitalist system, except the "capitalists" are just those workers who are willing to take a risk on their money (which, incidentally, would be the way right-libertarians generally advocate privatization). This also raises the problem of how any new factories are supposed to be made, or what happens when they go bust. After all, if workers could compete on equal terms under this system, they wouldn't need to "seize" anything, they could simply save up and make their own factory. Since the capitalists apparently don't contribute anything, they would quickly and immediately drive them out of business.
You are ignoring what I stated before - that this system doesn't involve merit in any way. Someone created a small amount of means of production which in turn created more and more without needing their owner to even do anything. Even assuming an ideal case where the original owner of the capital honestly earns it, the reward given to each person in the inheritance chain is disproportionately high.
You are concerned about workers slacking off, but seem to not mind in the slightest that someone may not work through his entire life and consume much more this worker could.
And how does it work out in a standard workplace, where the capitalist owns everything and all the profits from increased productivity go directly to him? Are they not inclined to be lazy, or his job-creator superhuman powers allow him to identify and expel slackers better than the people who work with him and are directly affected by his negligence?
Yeah, I do the bare minimum where I work right now, because I see zero reward for doing any more than that. There's a yearly performance review where I'm eligible for a merit raise, but in my 6 years of working there, the potential raise has never even kept up with inflation. By working hard to increase the company's profits, the only thing I would accomplish is to accelerate wealth consolidation. There are more disincentives for me to be productive than there are incentives.
I know for a fact that the company could easily afford to hire twice the people working for twice the pay in half the hours. Happiness and efficiency would increase across the board, more jobs would decrease social tensions, and it would hardly make a dent in their profit margins. The reason they don't is they don't want to create jobs. Unemployment is highly beneficial to the owning class, because it threatens workers in a way that they couldn't do personally. Bargaining power is non-existent for a person who can be easily replaced, which results in absolute compliancy of the workforce.
QuoteYeah, I do the bare minimum where I work right now, because I see zero reward for doing any more than that. There's a yearly performance review where I'm eligible for a merit raise, but in my 6 years of working there, the potential raise has never even kept up with inflation. By working hard to increase the company's profits, the only thing I would accomplish is to accelerate wealth consolidation. There are more disincentives for me to be productive than there are incentives.
I know for a fact that the company could easily afford to hire twice the people working for twice the pay in half the hours. Happiness and efficiency would increase across the board, more jobs would decrease social tensions, and it would hardly make a dent in their profit margins. The reason they don't is they don't want to create jobs. Unemployment is highly beneficial to the owning class, because it threatens workers in a way that they couldn't do personally. Bargaining power is non-existent for a person who can be easily replaced, which results in absolute compliancy of the workforce.
You could just go into business for yourself, you know. It's not like the companies that offer you jobs literally own you, and you are physically bound to stay with them regardless of conditions.
Because in the worker-owned factory, there is no single person with expertise in capital investment, etc. It comes down to a vote, and the "voters" will change from time to time depending on who retires and who joins the company, so whether they make a good decision on Day 1 is largely irrelevant to whether they make a good decision on Day 250, whereas an entrepreneur who has been doing well on Day 1 will probably continue to do well up to Day 250 (though his methods may become outdated, etc in which case his company's assets will eventually be bought out by someone else to try again).
They could vote to "hire" someone for these purposes, but then it just gets more complicated. Does he get an equal share in the factory too now that's managing things and controlling the assets of the factory?Or they could hire several people who would assess different aspect of the company and find the ways to improve the production process. Then they present their propositions to the assembly and the workers vote if they accept them or not. Of course, the hired managers are considered workers, too, so they get a vote and a share.
What if he wants a bigger share because his decisions have increased success at the factory far more than any other individual?Well, he goes to the assembly and tells them he wanted a better share because his decisions had increased success of the factory far more than any other individual. Then they vote.
What about R&D, which may vastly increase the factory's profitability but may also create nothing?Everyone who does the work for the factory gets a share of profits. This also includes R&D, management, maintenance, shipping. Why do you think that only the guy at the assembly line adds to the factory profitability?
Can a worker decide that he doesn't want the risk of actually losing money from the factory, and "sell" his ownership in exchange for a set amount of money from another worker?No.
By the end of it all, you've more likely than not recreated a system extremely close to the original capitalist system, except the "capitalists" are just those workers who are willing to take a risk on their money (which, incidentally, would be the way right-libertarians generally advocate privatization).I'm afraid that I didn't answer to your questions as you predicted, so this statement no longer makes sense.
This also raises the problem of how any new factories are supposed to be made, or what happens when they go bust.Most of them will most probably just split when they grow too big and cumbersome. Without a single person or small group of persons as the owners, it makes no sense to expand constantly, because more and more money gets spent to manage this monstrosity.
After all, if workers could compete on equal terms under this system, they wouldn't need to "seize" anything, they could simply save up and make their own factory. Since the capitalists apparently don't contribute anything, they would quickly and immediately drive them out of business.SalmonGod already answered that.
Also, out of curiosity (and largely unrelated to the main point, by the way), what exactly makes the factory "owned" by the workers? What happens if squatters come in and live there? After all the squatters "use" the factory too by sleeping and living in it, yet they make it harder for the workers to get anything done.You answered your own question.
So they created a single machine, which in turn created more and more machines without them working?
No. They need to ensure what they created doesn't become obsolete, that they aren't run out of business by others with different wage rates, that they see economic trends to know when to shift production, etc etc etc
They also need to be able to save considerable amounts to even be able to accumulate capital in the first place, and that has to hold true throughout the entire inheritance chain. If, at some point, the money goes to someone who isn't going to live at least somewhat frugally and use their money carefully, it will be quickly lost. Similarly, if you invest it in something, you're still taking a risk as to whether you'll actually benefit from it or not.
Whether the person at the end gets a lot of money, however, is generally a null point. It isn't that they deserve it, it's that the person who does deserve it (the initial wealth creator and anyone who added to it) decided that they wanted to give the money to them. Similarly, someone along the line could give all the money to charity, or distribute it amongst the workers, or (after withdrawing everything from banks and so on) toss it into a pit and burn it.I'm not thrilled to have my life dictated by someone on the basis that his distant ancestor had a successful workshop in 1836.
He has managers, etc to keep an eye on productivity. That's the whole point of management. Not to mention, if he wasn't capable of weeding out slackers, he would probably go out of business quickly from accumulated inefficiencies.Nothing I said did state that I want a factory composed only from assembly line workers. It was already said in this thread that cooperative factories are expected to have workers responsible for the coordination of work. Besides, it's much easier to spot a slacker when you are working next to him.
Sure. That would be easy. Except that I have to continue supporting a family while I build up this other thing to be able to support me at some later point. It's actually near impossible. I've suspected for a while, but at this point I'm almost certain that you're not a working adult. If you are, you've either had plenty of opportunity handed to you, you've never actually entertained any ambitions, or you're simply trolling. There's a reason rags to riches stories aren't a daily phenomenon.
It didn't take me long after becoming full-time employed to realize that it's a trap. Once you're there, your ability to create other opportunities for yourself is almost completely demolished. There's just no time.
Let's break down the day, and I'll do this generously. Let's say you work 8 hours and sleep 8 hours in a day. That's 16 hours gone. Now take your standard half hour lunch break. My commuting time averages about 30 minutes a day, so I'll go with that. That's 17 hours gone. Now take your other two meals a day outside of work and basic bathroom activities and the like. That's at least another hour, being very generous. That's 18 hours gone.
That's 6 hours absolute maximum that a person has to themselves in a day. That's if they're completely mechanical about going from Point A to Point B in their daily routine. Six hours a day is decently sufficient for accomplishing meaningful things. Starting a personal business is fairly ambitious, but doable with that much time freely available every day, plus weekends.
Now factor in maintaining relationships with friends and family, regular chores and errands such as cleaning and grocery shopping, exercise, longer commutes, overtime or multiple jobs, random life events such as illnesses or social obligations, keeping up with news and otherwise being an informed citizen, a hobby so that stress doesn't kill you in your mid-30's (like my grandfather who worked himself to death), and god forbid you actually have a significant other or children you need to spend time with. Yeah. Most of these are things you have little control over, and any combination of them locks your life in place pretty damn hard.
I've actually been working with a small start-up business the last couple months. I think it will probably be at least a year before it turns into a paying gig. In the meantime, I'm neglecting my family and haven't done anything for fun in a couple weeks. I haven't done anything with a friend in months. I'm feeling it. It worries the hell out of me. I have a family history of stress-related illnesses, and have suffered them myself in the past. I've had two MRSA infections during two of the most stressful periods of my life, and the last one nearly took my arm.
It's thoroughly bullshit, to the point that I could easily take such a flippant statement as "you could go into business yourself, you know" as insult if I wanted, due to the nature of what that statement implies versus everything the suggestion actually entails. I'm just pointing this out for you, though. I don't think you actually meant insult.
They have the access to the same data as the capitalist. They can hire (or contract) the same experts as the capitalist would hire. I'd like to hear why would they be unable to make a good decision and why some of them retiring would affect the rest of them so much they lose all the expertise obtained. Oh, and what happens when the capitalist dies or sells his business to someone else?
No.
I'm afraid that I didn't answer to your questions as you predicted, so this statement no longer makes sense.
Most of them will most probably just split when they grow too big and cumbersome. Without a single person or small group of persons as the owners, it makes no sense to expand constantly, because more and more money gets spent to manage this monstrosity.
As for such structures going bust, I'm not sure what problems do you see with that.
SalmonGod already answered that.
You answered your own question.
At certain point this process becomes self-sustaining. With enough capital, you can hire people who will do all the work for you, including managing your investments and caring for your property. You are also able to influence the state to help you - hamper your competition, influence the market to help you earn more, make a favorable deal with you. Everyone who enters the market after you will have it harder to compete with you for that reason, which makes the game even easier for you.
I'm not thrilled to have my life dictated by someone on the basis that his distant ancestor had a successful workshop in 1836.
Okay. So how would the introduction of a propertyless, Mutualist society help you in particular?
If the workers who are good at making decisions along these lines retire and are replaced by workers who aren't interested in doing so, then their collective decision making ability goes down, especially if those who retire are instrumental in pushing things along.
So now the workers have to be forced to take all the risk that owning the factory entails?I'm not sure what do you mean about "taking all the risks". Yes, if the factory goes bust, they lose their workplace and have to seek another one. Its assets will most probably be sold, or used to start up another business. If the business accumulated debt, the money is used to repay the obligee instead, so it's probably better to call it a day before that. It's not more risky than being a shareholder of a company which goes bankrupt.
Split to what? Every worker takes his machine and goes home?There are many ways how a co-op can split. I imagine it as some of the workers pooling their assets to create a new branch elsewhere. It's even easier when the community in a new place has a vital interest in having them there, because it may help to set them up.
What happens to them? Under a capitalist, they are either transferred to whoever he sold them to, or are left to his next of kin. Under this system, no one is allowed to have excess "possessions", so obviously they can't save enough to personally restore the factory.Depends. If the facility was crucial to the local community in some way, it may be interested to restore it, but probably wouldn't want it to be governed by the same dumbasses who let it fall. Otherwise it's open for anyone who wants to set up his operation there, most probably splitters from a factory somewhere else.
Personal hardship in saving is not an end-all answer. Do you think entrepreneurs don't risk losing everything in the same way? Certainly some don't, but others stake everything in their businesses, which either pan out or flop.It's not "personal hardship in saving", it's pretty much being unable to save with heavily limited time, negligible income compared to the capitalist's and - most probably - being already on debt. Then you have to compete with someone who already has more money, so can just, for example. temporarily lower prices and starve you out. Unless you can tap on some previously unexplored market, or the one that recently started to expand very quickly, the game is rigged against you.
This also ducks the issue that nearly every worker owned factory in marginally prosperous countries ends up either falling apart or stagnating.Data, please. From what I know, they prosper pretty well, considering that in most countries law heavily favors privately owned companies.
Not quite. The capitalist could just as easily say "I'm being prevented from doing my job by these workers taking my means of production". People attempting to take the machines and convert them for sewing could say the workers are preventing them from sewing. There is no measure of who "owns" the factory since literally anyone could use it.The question you need to ask yourself is - which of these cases benefits the people who are currently using the factory? The difference between possession and property was already described in SalmonGod's posts which you should have already read given the fact that you're discussing with him.
Certainly, after a point the game is basically rigged in your favour. If the stock market drops, the government will rob the citizens to bring it back up. If the gigantic megacorp is in trouble, the government will give it absurdly good loans. Not to mention small bonuses (eg. a steady inflation rate, in which you, the first to receive "printed" money, effectively get negative interest rates on your stocks and products that the "wage slaves" at the bottom have to pay off), etc. However, that argument is more of an argument against statism in general rather than private ownership of the means of production. After all, there are people like that under state socialism as well, and they are well outside the capitalist system of ownership.Private ownership of the means of production cannot exist without the state to enforce it. Moreover, existence of the state that favors the biggest players is beneficial to them, so without any government it's in their best interest to set one up. Given that the capital tends to accumulate even without the government intervention, these big players would inevitably appear, the libertarian vision would quickly end where it begun: with a corporate state.
Besides that, if there aren't artificial barriers to entry, it's very much likely that there is a fair bit of competition to this fellow, all of whom would happily take his employees and his customers given the chance.There are many barriers that are not artificial. It's hard to compete with someone who can throw money at every problem he faces. When you're suing him, for example, he can afford much better lawyers than you and even if he loses, he will be more than able to shrug off the penalties. If you're competing with him, he can just slash the prices below the costs - you'll either lose customers, or run out of money much faster than him. If he owns enough of the market, he can arrange much more favorable deals with his business customers, because he can just refuse to do any business with them if they don't comply. He can also advertise his product on the scale you can't possibly hope to match.